The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve, District Court Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Larry Johnson brings a due process claim based on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and a common law malicious prosecution claim against Defendant Officer Karl Saville, acting under his authority as an Illinois state police officer. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion.
I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
When determining summary judgment motions, the Court derives the background facts from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements, which assist the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence." Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000). Specifically, Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue." Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643 (7th Cir. 2008). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) requires the nonmoving party to admit or deny every factual statement proffered by the moving party and to concisely designate any material facts that establish a genuine dispute for trial. See Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005).
The purpose of Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006). The requirements for responses under Local Rule 56.1 are "not satisfied by evasive denials that do not fairly meet the substance of the material facts asserted." Bordelon, 233 F.3d at 528. A litigant's failure to respond to a Local Rule 56.1 statement results in the Court admitting the uncontroverted statement as true. Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006). In addition, the Court may disregard statements and responses that do not properly cite to the record. Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., L.L.C., 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005). With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts of this case.
From 1999-2004, the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") employed Johnson as a Youth Supervisor at the Illinois Youth Center ("IYC") located in Warrenville, Illinois. (R. 42-3, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) Officer Saville is an Illinois State Police ("ISP") Officer. (Id. ¶ 3.) Johnson is suing Officer Saville in his individual capacity. (Id.)
On September 5, 2003, through Barnett Gill, an employee at IYC Warrenville, IDOC learned that Johnson may have had sexual relations with an IDOC inmate, referred to as A.M. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 9; 52-1, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 1, 2, 3.) Thereafter, IDOC referred the matter to the ISP and on September 5, 2003, the ISP assigned Officer Saville to investigate the allegations of Johnson's criminal misconduct. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 3, 6.)*fn1
Although the IDOC referred the matter to the ISP, IDOC investigators were the first to interview A.M., who was no longer an IDOC inmate. (Id. ¶ 7.) A.M. denied having sexual relations with Johnson to the IDOC investigators. (Id. ¶ 9; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 5.) Officer Saville was not present at the IDOC interview of A.M., nor did he know that A.M. denied having sexual contact with Johnson to the IDOC investigators. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 10.) Morever, Officer Saville did not receive the IDOC's reports about the interview, nor did he speak with the IDOC investigators about their interview. (Id.) Meanwhile, at Johnson's criminal trial, A.M. testified that the IDOC investigators scared her, would not leave her alone, and told her that she would go back to the IDOC if she was not honest with them. (Id. ¶ 12, Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 6, 7, 16.)
C. Officer Saville's Investigation
1. King Telephone Call and Interview
Shortly after the ISP assigned Officer Saville to the Johnson matter, he contacted A.M.'s mother, Felicia King, to set up an interview regarding a complaint King had filed about Barnett Gill. (Id. ¶ 13; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 1, 2.) During this telephone conversation, King told Officer Saville that the IDOC investigators had interviewed A.M. and that A.M. was upset about the IDOC interview. (Def.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 13.) King also informed Officer Saville that A.M. had been hospitalized for attempting to commit suicide. (Id.) Because A.M. was hospitalized, Officer Saville was unable to talk to her about the sexual conduct allegations at that time. (Id. ¶ 14.) Meanwhile, when Officer Saville learned that A.M. had attempted suicide a day or two after the IDOC officers interviewed her, Officer Saville reported this to a DuPage County Assistant State's Attorney. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Shortly thereafter, Officer Saville and his partner interviewed King about her complaint concerning Gill. (Id. ¶ 16.) King explained that Gill called her at home on September 4, 2003, and requested to speak to A.M. (Id.) King denied Gill's request to speak with her daughter and reported the incident to IDOC. (Id.) The ISP did not pursue King's complaint against Gill because it was an ...